Let us first examine the general theoretical physiognomy of the critics. Mr. Bulgakov appeared in the journal *Nachalo*{51} with an article against Kautsky's "Agrarian Question" and at once displayed all of his "critical" methods. With extraordinary harshness and the brazenness of a true bully, he "tore apart" Kautsky, foisting upon him things he never said; accusing Kautsky of ignoring circumstances and considerations precisely expounded by Kautsky himself; presenting to the reader under the guise of his own critical conclusions – conclusions drawn by Kautsky. With the air of an expert, Mr. Bulgakov accused Kautsky of confusing technique with economics, – and at the same time immediately revealed not only incredible confusion on his own part, but also his unwillingness to read through to the end the pages he was citing from his opponent. It goes without saying that the article of the future professor was riddled with hackneyed attacks against socialists, against the "theory of collapse," utopianism, faith in miracles, and so forth.[29] Now in his doctoral dissertation ("Capitalism and Agriculture," SPB. 1900), Mr. Bulgakov has settled all accounts with Marxism and brought his "critical" evolution to its logical conclusion.

Mr. Bulgakov places at the cornerstone of his "theory of agrarian development" the "law of decreasing fertility of the soil." We are presented with excerpts from the works of classical economists who established this "law" (according to which each additional investment of labor and capital in land is accompanied not by a corresponding, but by a diminishing quantity of product extracted). We are given a list of English economists who recognize this law. We are assured that it "has universal significance," that it is a "perfectly obvious truth which is absolutely impossible to deny," "which one need only clearly establish," and so on and so forth. The more decisively Mr. Bulgakov expresses himself, the more clearly it becomes evident that he is retreating backwards to bourgeois political economy, which obscured social relations with invented "eternal laws." Indeed, what does the "obviousness" of the notorious "law of decreasing fertility of the soil" amount to? To this: that if subsequent applications of labor and capital to land yielded not a diminishing, but an equal quantity of product, then there would be no need to expand cultivation at all; then an additional quantity of grain could be produced on the same amount of land, however small that amount might be; then "the agriculture of the entire terrestrial globe could be accommodated on a single desyatina." Such is the usual (and the only) argument in favor of this "universal" law. And the slightest reflection will show anyone that this argument represents an utterly empty abstraction, which leaves aside the most crucial thing: the level of technique, the state of productive forces. Essentially, the very concept of "additional (or: successive) investments of labor and capital" already presupposes a change in methods of production, a transformation of technique. To increase significantly the quantity of capital invested in land, one must invent new machines, new systems of crop rotation, new methods of maintaining livestock, transporting products, and so forth and so on. Of course, on a relatively small scale, "additional investments of labor and capital" can occur (and do occur) even on the basis of a given, unchanged level of technique: in this case the "law of decreasing fertility of the soil" has a certain applicability – applicable in the sense that an unchanged state of technique sets very narrow comparative limits on additional investments of labor and capital. Instead of a universal law, we obtain, consequently, an extremely relative "law," – so relative that there can be no question of any "law" and not even of any cardinal peculiarity of agriculture. Let us take as given: three-field crop rotation, sowings of traditional grain crops, manure-based livestock raising, absence of improved meadows and improved implements. It is evident that given the constancy of these conditions, the limits on additional investments of labor and capital in land are extremely narrow. But even within those narrow limits in which additional investments of labor and capital are nonetheless possible, one will by no means always and unconditionally observe a diminishing productivity of each such additional investment. Let us take industry. Imagine grain-milling or iron-working production in the epoch preceding world commerce and the invention of steam engines. Under this state of technique, the limits on additional investments of labor and capital in manual smithies, windmills and water mills were extremely narrow; the vast proliferation of small smithies and mills was inevitable, until the radical transformation of methods of production created the basis for new forms of industry.

Thus: the "law of decreasing fertility of the soil" is not at all applicable to those cases when technique progresses, when methods of production are transformed; it has only a very relative and conditional application to those cases when technique remains unchanged. This is precisely why neither Marx nor Marxists speak of this "law," and only representatives of bourgeois science, like Brentano, cry out about it – those who cannot at all rid themselves of the prejudices of old political economy with its abstract, eternal, and natural laws.

Mr. Bulgakov defends the "universal law" with arguments that deserve ridicule.

"What appeared as a free gift of nature must now be created by man: wind and rain loosened the soil, full of nutritive elements; it sufficed for man to make a small effort in order to obtain what was necessary. Over time, an ever greater part of productive work falls to man's share; as everywhere, artificial processes increasingly take the place of natural ones. But if in industry this expresses man's victory over nature, then in agriculture it indicates a growing difficulty of existence, for which nature restricts its gifts.

In this case it is indifferent whether the increasing difficulty of producing food is expressed in an increase of human labor or in an increase of its products, for example, means of production or fertilizer, etc.; what is important is only that it costs man more and more. In this replacement of the forces of nature by human labor, of natural factors of production by artificial ones, lies the law of decreasing fertility of the soil" (16).

It is evident that Mr. Bulgakov cannot sleep for envy of Messrs. Struve and Tugan-Baranovsky, who have thought up the idea that it is not man working with the help of a machine, but a machine with the help of man. Like these critics, he too descends to the level of vulgar economics, speaking of the replacement of the forces of nature by human labor, etc. To replace the forces of nature with human labor is, generally speaking, as impossible as it is to replace arshins with puds. Both in industry and in agriculture, man can only make use of the action of the forces of nature, if he has come to know their action, and can facilitate this use by means of machines, implements, etc. That primitive man obtained what was necessary as a free gift of nature – this is a stupid fable, for which Mr. Bulgakov could be hissed even by beginning students. There was no golden age behind us, and primitive man was utterly crushed by the difficulty of existence, the difficulty of struggle with nature. The introduction of machines and improved methods of production immeasurably eased this struggle for man in general and the production of food in particular. What has increased is not the difficulty of producing food, but the difficulty of obtaining food for the worker – it has increased because capitalist development has inflated land rent and land price, has concentrated agriculture in the hands of large and petty capitalists, has concentrated yet more the machines, implements, money without which successful production is impossible. To explain this growing difficulty of workers' existence by the fact that nature restricts its gifts – this means becoming a bourgeois apologist.

"By accepting this law," Mr. Bulgakov continues, "we do not at all assert a continuous increase in the difficulty of producing food or deny agricultural progress: to assert the former and deny the latter would mean going against obviousness. It is undeniable that this difficulty grows not continuously; development moves in zigzags. Agronomic discoveries, technical improvements transform barren lands into fertile ones, temporarily eliminate the tendency noted in the law of decreasing fertility of the soil" (ibid.[30]).

Is this not profoundly thought out?

Technical progress – a "temporary" tendency, while the law of decreasing fertility of the soil, i.e., diminishing (and not even always that) productivity of additional investments of capital on the basis of unchanged technique, "has universal significance"! This is precisely the same as saying: train stops at stations represent a universal law of steam transport, while the movement of trains between stations is a temporary tendency that paralyzes the action of the universal law of standing still.

Finally, there are also mass data that openly refute the universality of the law of decreasing fertility: data on agricultural and non-agricultural population. Mr. Bulgakov himself acknowledges that "obtaining food would require a constantly increasing quantity of labor relatively" (mark this!) "and consequently, agricultural population, if each country were limited to its natural resources" (19). If in Western Europe the agricultural population is decreasing, this is explained by the fact that by means of grain imports, it was possible to deflect the action of the law of decreasing fertility from itself. – I must say, what an excellent explanation! Our learned man forgot about a trifle: that the relative decrease in agricultural population is observed in all capitalist countries, including both grain-exporting and grain-importing ones. The agricultural population is relatively decreasing in America and in Russia; it decreased in France since the end of the XVIII century (see the figures in the same work of Mr. Bulgakov, II, p. 168), and this relative decrease sometimes even becomes absolute, while the surplus of grain imports over exports was still in the 30s and 40s absolutely negligible, and only from 1878 onward are there no longer any years with surplus of exports over imports[31]. In Prussia the rural population decreased relatively from 73.5% in 1816 to 71.7% in 1849 and 67.5% in 1871, while rye imports began only in the early 60s, wheat imports in the early 70s (ibid., II, 70 and 88). Finally, if we take European countries that import grain – for example, France and Germany in the last decade – we will see undeniable agricultural progress alongside the absolute decrease in the number of workers engaged in it: in France this number decreased from 1882 to 1892 – from 6,913,504 to 6,663,135 ("Statist, agric," part II, pp. 248–251); in Germany from 1882 to 1895 – from 8064 thousand to 8045 thousand.[32] Thus, one can say that the entire history of the XIX century, with mass data from the most various countries, irrefutably proves that the "universal" law of decreasing fertility of soil is completely paralyzed by the "temporary" tendency of technical progress, which makes it possible for the relatively decreasing (and sometimes even absolutely decreasing) agricultural population to produce an increasing quantity of agricultural products for an increasing mass of population.

By the way, these mass statistical data completely refute also the two following central points of Mr. Bulgakov's "theory," namely: first, his assertion that the theory of more rapid growth of constant capital (implements and materials of production) in comparison with variable capital (labor-power) is "completely inapplicable to agriculture." Mr. Bulgakov quite proudly declares that this theory is incorrect, citing in support of his opinion: a) "Prof. A. Skvortsov" (famous chiefly for attributing Marx's theory of average rate of profit to agitational malice) and b) the fact that with intensification of economy the quantity of workers per unit of area increases. This is one of those deliberate misunderstandings of Marx constantly displayed by representatives of fashionable criticism. Just think: the theory of more rapid growth of constant capital in comparison with variable capital is refuted by the fact of an increase in variable capital per unit of area! And Mr. Bulgakov does not notice that the statistical data he himself adduces so abundantly confirm Marx's theory. If in all German agriculture the number of workers from 1882 to 1895 decreased from 8064 to 8045 thousand (and with the addition of persons engaged in agriculture on the side, increased from 11,208 to 11,623 thousand, i.e., only 3.7% in all), while the quantity of livestock during this time increased from 23.0 million to 25.4 million (converting all livestock to large stock), i.e., more than 10%, the number of instances of use of the five principal machines increased from 458 thousand to 922 thousand, i.e., more than twofold, the quantity of imported fertilizers from 636 thousand tons (1883) to 1961 thousand tons (1892) and the quantity of potash salts from 304 thousand double centners to 2400 thousand[33] – is it not clear that the ratio of constant capital to variable capital is increasing? We are not even speaking of the fact that these blanket figures to a tremendous degree conceal the progress of large-scale production. On this below.

Second, the progress of agriculture with a decrease or negligible absolute increase in the agricultural population completely refutes Mr. Bulgakov's absurd attempt to resurrect Malthusianism. Among Russian "former Marxists," Mr. Struve made this attempt, apparently for the first time, in his "Critical Comments," but he, as always, went no further than timid, incomplete, and ambiguous remarks, not thought through to the end and not brought into a unified system of views. Mr. Bulgakov is bolder and more consistent: the "law of decreasing fertility," without the slightest hesitation, he transforms into "one of the most important laws of the history of civilization" (sic! p. 18). "The entire history of the XIX century... with its problems of wealth and poverty would be incomprehensible without this law." "For me it is absolutely certain that the social question in its present formulation is essentially bound up with this law" (this is what our strict scholar declares already on page 18 of his "investigation"!)... "It is undeniable," he declares at the end of his work, "that in the presence of overpopulation, a certain part of poverty must be attributed to absolute poverty, poverty of production, not of distribution" (II, 221). "The problem of population in that particular formulation which is created by the conditions of agricultural production constitutes, in my view, the main difficulty which lies in the way – at the present time, at least – of any fairly broad implementation of the principles of collectivism or cooperation in agricultural enterprise" (II, 265). "The past leaves as a legacy to the future a grain question, more terrible and more difficult than the social question – a question of production, not of distribution" (II, 455) and so forth, and so forth, and so forth. We have no need to speak of the scientific significance of this "theory," inseparably bound up with the universal law of decreasing fertility of soil – after we have analyzed this law. And that critical flirtation with Malthusianism has led, in its inevitable logical development, to the most vulgar bourgeois apologetics – this is evidenced by the conclusions of Mr. Bulgakov we have cited with a frankness that leaves nothing to be desired.

In the next essay we shall examine the data from certain new sources indicated by our critics (who have pestered everyone to death about how the orthodox shun detailed analysis), and we shall show that Mr. Bulgakov generally transforms the little word "overpopulation" into a stencil, the application of which frees him from any analysis and especially from analysis of class contradictions within the "peasantry." Now, limiting ourselves to the general-theoretical side of the agrarian question, we must still touch on the theory of rent. "As for Marx," writes Mr. Bulgakov, "in Volume III of *Capital*, – in the form in which we now have it – he adds nothing deserving of attention to Ricardo's theory of differential rent" (87). Let us remember this "nothing deserving of attention," and compare it with the following statement made by the critic earlier and juxtapose with his verdict: "Despite Marx's obviously negative attitude toward this law (the law of decreasing fertility of soil), Marx appropriates in its basic principles Ricardo's theory of rent, which is built on this law" (13). So, according to Mr. Bulgakov, Marx did not notice the connection between Ricardo's theory of rent and the law of decreasing fertility and therefore did not tie up the loose ends! We can say one thing regarding such a presentation: no one distorts Marx like former Marxists; no one displays such incredible shamelessness... shamelessness... shamelessness in foisting upon the criticized writer a thousand and one mortal sins.

Mr. Bulgakov's assertion is a flagrant distortion of the truth. In reality, Marx not only noticed this connection between Ricardo's theory of rent and his erroneous doctrine of decreasing fertility of soil, but with complete definiteness exposed Ricardo's error. Anyone who read Volume III of *Capital* with even a drop of "attention" could not fail to notice that highly "deserving of attention" circumstance that it was precisely Marx who liberated the theory of differential rent from all connection with the notorious "law of decreasing fertility of soil." Marx showed that for the formation of differential rent what is necessary and sufficient is the fact of different productivity of different applications of capital to land. It is completely immaterial whether the transition occurs from better land to worse land or, conversely, whether the productivity of additional applications of capital in land decreases or increases. In reality, all manner of combinations of these different cases occur, and none of these combinations can be brought under any single general rule. For example, Marx first describes differential rent of the first kind, arising from the different productivity of applications of capital on different plots of land, and clarifies his exposition with tables (regarding which Mr. Bulgakov makes a stern rebuke for "Marx's excessive fondness for clothing his – often very simple – thoughts in complex mathematical garb." This complex mathematical garb is limited to the four operations of arithmetic, and the very simple thoughts turned out, as we see, to be completely incomprehensible to the learned professor). Having examined these tables, Marx concludes: "Thus falls that first incorrect presupposition of differential rent which still prevails with West, Malthus, Ricardo, namely, that differential rent necessarily presupposes a transition to worse and worse soil or continuously decreasing fertility of agriculture. Differential rent, as we have seen, can take place with a transition to better and better land; differential rent can take place when the lowest stage is occupied by better soil instead of previously worse soil; it can be connected with growing progress of agriculture. Its condition is exclusively the inequality of kinds of soil." (Marx does not speak here of the different productivity of successive applications of capital to land, because this produces differential rent of the second kind, and in this chapter we are dealing with differential rent of the first kind.) "Insofar as development of productivity is concerned, differential rent presupposes that the increase of absolute fertility of the entire agricultural area does not destroy this inequality, but either strengthens it, or leaves it unchanged, or only diminishes it" (*Das Kapital*, III, 2, S. 199){52}. Mr. Bulgakov did not notice this fundamental distinction between Marx's theory of differential rent and Ricardo's theory of rent. Instead, he preferred to search in the third volume of *Capital* for "a passage allowing one to think rather that Marx's attitude toward the law of decreasing fertility of soil was far from negative" (p. 13, note). We apologize to the reader for having to devote a very large amount of space to a completely inessential (with respect to the question concerning us and Mr. Bulgakov) passage. But what are we to do if the heroes of contemporary criticism (who still dare accuse the orthodox of chicanery[34]) distort the completely clear meaning of the teaching hostile to them by means of citations torn from context and by means of garbled translations? Mr. Bulgakov cites the passage he found in the following way: "From the standpoint of the capitalist mode of production there always occurs a relative increase in price of (agricultural) products, for the reason that" (we ask the reader to pay particular attention to the words we underline) "in order to obtain the product a certain expenditure is made, something must be paid for that was not paid before." And Marx goes on to say that the elements of nature, entering into production as its agents, cost nothing, are a free natural productive force of labor, and if in order to produce an additional product it becomes necessary to work without the help of this natural force, then new capital must be expended, which leads to an increase in the cost of production.

Regarding such a method of "quoting," we must make three observations. First, the little word "because" (так как), lending an absolute meaning to the tirade of establishing some sort of "law," was inserted by Mr. Bulgakov from his own resources. In the original (*Das Kapital*, III, 2, S. 277–278) it is not "because" (так как), but "if" (если){53}. If something must be paid for that was not paid before, then there always occurs a relative increase in price of products; is this not how such a proposition resembles recognition of the "law" of decreasing fertility? Second, the little word "agricultural" was inserted along with brackets by Mr. Bulgakov. In the original it is not there at all. Mr. Bulgakov apparently decided, with the thoughtlessness characteristic of the critics, that Marx could only be speaking here of agricultural products, and hastened to provide the reader with a "clarification" of a completely perverted sort. In reality, Marx speaks here of all products in general; preceding the passage cited by Mr. Bulgakov are Marx's words: "it should generally be noted as follows." The free forces of nature can enter into industrial production too – such is the example of a waterfall provided by Marx in the same section on rent, replacing for one of the factories the force of steam – and if it becomes necessary to produce an additional quantity of product without the help of these free forces, then there will always occur a relative increase in price of products. Third, one must consider the context in which this passage stands. Marx speaks in this chapter of differential rent from the worst cultivated land and examines, as always, two completely equal for him, completely equally possible cases: the first case – increasing productivity of successive applications of capital (S. 274–276) and the second case – decreasing productivity of them (S. 276–278){54}. Regarding this last of the possible cases, Marx says: "Concerning decreasing fertility of soil with successive applications of capital, see Liebig... But it should generally be noted as follows" (italics ours). Then follows the passage "translated" by Mr. Bulgakov, which states that if something must be paid for that was not paid before, then there always occurs a relative increase in price of products.

We leave it to the reader himself to judge the scientific integrity of a critic who has transformed Marx's remark about one of the possible cases into a recognition by Marx of this case as some sort of universal "law."

And here is Mr. Bulgakov's concluding opinion on the passage he found: "This passage is, of course, obscure"... Well, naturally! After Bulgakov's substitution of one word for another, this passage is even completely devoid of meaning... "but cannot be understood otherwise than as an indirect or even direct recognition" (listen!) "of the law of decreasing fertility of soil. I know of no instance where Marx expressed himself directly on the latter" (I, 14). As a former Marxist, Mr. Bulgakov is "unaware" that Marx directly declared completely incorrect the assumption of West, Malthus, Ricardo that differential rent presupposes a transition to worse lands or falling fertility of soil[35]. He is "unaware" that throughout his voluminous analysis of rent, Marx shows dozens of times that he regards decreasing and increasing productivity of additional expenditures of capital as completely equally possible cases!